Fair Tax!

Red White and New.com is a grass-roots movement to push a complete over-haul of America's current tax system.

Income tax took three times to be to be voted into law. Even, then it took lying to the American people to get it passed. The other two times it was deemed unconstitutional.
The movement, if successful, would abolish the IRS.

We need more people, more people like you.
Come on and let your voice be heard!


RedWhiteAndNew.com

"fair"

that's all i got from the site

can you please provide me details on what this "fair" tax system would be?

Since that was useless here is my view of a fair tax system.



Sales tax

Living tax- If you live in a house or apartment you pay it. No "property tax" just a rate on rent and a small tax percent on the worth of your house.

Feul tax

Car tax

Bussiness tax

Enviormental tax for Polluting bussiness

Smaller gun registration fees- like 50$ a year regardless.

As much as this hurts my wallet Alchol and Tabbacco tax.


I'm agianst Income tax because you earned that X amount of dollars and have fun with it, well get you in the sales tax.

Originally posted by Sandro
Income tax took three times to be to be voted into law. Even, then it took lying to the American people to get it passed. The other two times it was deemed unconstitutional.

I don't know where you're getting this from. The Constitution was amended (16th) to allow the income tax. Post said amendment, it certainly is not unconstitutional.

What would be a "fair" tax?

1. One that covers needed/wanted government expenditures, without a deficit except in times of emergency such as wars or major economic collapse, and with a net surplus factoring in both such times and boom times.

Deficit spending amounts to a hidden tax on the middle class for the benefit of the rich, and is manifestly unfair.

2. One that places the heaviest burden on those with the most wealth, and leaves working people able to support their families in reasonable comfort without borrowing money.

Our current system obviously isn't ideal on either point. But most proposals I see for anything called a "fair tax" are even worse, and are Trojan horses designed to cut taxes for the rich, having no other purpose.

Can you even imagine what would happen if there was no income tax, if that source of government revenue was wiped out? Who'd pay for the infrastructure, schools, hospitals, military, social services, foreign aid, the bonds that prop up the economy, business loans, etc etc???

This is what I found on fair tax:

Source

The FairTax:
• Abolishes the IRS
• Closes all tax loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
• Maintains our current Social Security and Medicare benefits
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
• Allows American products to compete fairly
• Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
• Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck

I caught the tail end of Coast to Coast when they were talking about this. The proponent stated that a 23% federal sales tax on 2005 GDP would equal the amount of income taxes collected for that year. There would be no exemptions. We would be able to afford this sales tax if we get to keep our entire pay check. Also, illegal aliens would be paying into our tax system as well as foreigners who are visiting here.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Can you even imagine what would happen if there was no income tax, if that source of government revenue was wiped out? Who'd pay for the infrastructure, schools, hospitals, military, social services, foreign aid, the bonds that prop up the economy, business loans, etc etc???

My opinion probably belongs in Slug-fest, but the topic is here...


Why should any goverment be giving forgein aid? It should worry about it's own people first. Social services should be limited for Elderly citizens and the sick not the unemployed. That's just my opinion. If you got rid of those getting rid of income tax seems plausible. Sales tax would probably go up too.

Originally posted by darkelf
I caught the tail end of Coast to Coast when they were talking about this. The proponent stated that a 23% federal sales tax on 2005 GDP would equal the amount of income taxes collected for that year. There would be no exemptions. We would be able to afford this sales tax if we get to keep our entire pay check. Also, illegal aliens would be paying into our tax system as well as foreigners who are visiting here.

For the great majority of taxpayers, income tax is 15% on net income after deductions. That means the amount deducted from the average paycheck for income tax is less than 15%. The average taxpayer would be paying at a higher rate. The top income tax rate is 38%. The richest taxpayers would be paying at a lower rate.

What's more, sales taxes normally don't apply to wholesale purchases or investments. So the average taxpayer, who uses more of his income for making purchases that would be taxed, would pay a higher percentage of his income than the richest taxpayers.

A tax hike for you and me, a tax cut for Bill Gates. Oh, sure, that sounds "fair" all right.

Any sales tax above 9 and a quarter, and it becomes a SERIOUS incentive for businesses to cheat, especially the ones that deal in knowledge/data rather than commodities.


A FAIR tax would be one where everyone pays the same rate. That's what FAIR means (or used to mean). One group, no matter how odious, is not forced to pay a higher or lower tax than anyone else. Second, there are no loopholes. Give to charity if you want. But pay tax on INCOME. regardless of source. Whether it is from the T-bills your grandad bought, or the tips you got from tending bar, or from your inheritance of financial instruments. Tax is tax. Everyone pays.

17% would do the trick.

Of course, I'd need to deputize the national guard, in order to put down the hordes of rioting CPA's and IRS agents. But then, most of them are not really violent enough to be a very bloody uprising. But then, somebody's gotta lose their job; better them than the rest of us.



.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Any sales tax above 9 and a quarter, and it becomes a SERIOUS incentive for businesses to cheat

That's a good point, too.

A FAIR tax would be one where everyone pays the same rate.

A fair tax is one in which everyone bears the same burden. That is not the same thing as everyone paying the same rate.

The burden of taxation is what you have to sacrifice to pay it. Consider a 20% flat income tax with no deductions. A person who makes $100,000 a year would pay $20,000, while one who makes $20,000 a year would pay $4,000. But the burden -- what the person would have to sacrifice -- is much higher to come up with that measley four grand on a 20k income, than to come up with 20k on a 100k income. The 100k maker would have to sacrifice getting a new car, or taking a couple of vacations in Europe. The 20k maker would have to sacrifice eating or paying rent.

And that's why the simplistic formula "fair = same tax rate for everyone" doesn't work.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

A fair tax is one in which everyone bears the same burden. That is not the same thing as everyone paying the same rate.

The burden of taxation is what you have to sacrifice to pay it.

And that's why the simplistic formula "fair = same tax rate for everyone" doesn't work.

While I respect your right to your opinion, I disagree completely.

If I charged rent based on the color of the tennants' skin, who here would not call me a moral monster?

And yet that's an analogue of what you are championing. Charging different people different rates, based on their "lot in life."

Fair is the same treatment. The same test, the same burden the same chance.

What you are aiming at is "equal outcomes." And equal outcomes are the opposite of fairness. The only way you get equal outcomes is by giving some people an unearned boost (however you justify it), and holding some people back, despite their enhanced ability.

Holding people back is a form of preferential treatment, and is the very definition of tyranny.

Holding some people back, or giving them a different burden to shoulder, is the opposite of fairness.

The ends don't justify the means; they condition the end.

As I've said elsewhere, any politician who wants to convince you that some minority (blacks, jews, nisrani, "the rich," whatever) ought to pay a different rate, does not really believe in liberty.

Tyrants always say that their target minority "diserves" to pay more, whether its unbelievers in a muslim state, or the "evil rich fatcats" in the west.

Fair is fair--applying the same rules for all. Everything else is sophistry.


.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
If I charged rent based on the color of the tennants' skin, who here would not call me a moral monster?

Since skin color has nothing to do with housing, yes.

Does taxation have anything to do with income?

What you are aiming at is "equal outcomes." And equal outcomes are the opposite of fairness. The only way you get equal outcomes is by giving some people an unearned boost (however you justify it), and holding some people back, despite their enhanced ability.

Holding people back is a form of preferential treatment, and is the very definition of tyranny.

I see. So in your opinion, a system that gives preference to people who are born into good families who can provide them with a good education and open doors for them after they graduate, while others are held back by their own poorer origins, is the very definition of tyranny? A system that makes it easy for rich people to become richer, while putting barriers in the way of working-class people gaining financial independence, is the very definition of tyranny? If so, I think I agree.

I am not aming for "equal" outcomes, only for acceptable outcomes for everyone, or as nearly everyone as can be reasonably achieved. I wouldn't mind seeing equal outcomes, but I wouldn't aim for it. The problem with aiming for "equal" outcomes, is that it is putting a philosophical ideal in front of pragmatic reality. Do that, and you end up causing more harm than good.

The same could be said of putting the philosophical ideal of free markets, freedom in general, and small government ahead of pragmatic reality. That produces misery, resentment, and social injustice and violence. I don't care what kind of theoretical justification you can bring for it, a tree that produces such foul fruit should be cut down.

Now, let me pose you a simple question.

Why should anyone be condemned to a life of drudgery and never making it because his or her intelligence is less than mine? Did he or she choose to be less intelligent than I am?

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Does taxation have anything to do with income?

No. Taxation is the price of citizenship.
The idea that some people ought to be burdened differently, just because we don't like them as much, is the definition of unfairness; and it's a point you never address.

I am not aming for "equal" outcomes, only for acceptable outcomes for everyone, or as nearly everyone as can be reasonably achieved.

Same thing. You're playing semantic games. Whether you use the word 'equal' or 'acceptable,' you're still imposing someone who will judge what an acceptable outcome should look like.


No one is condemned to a life of drudgery because of their intelligence. Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson bring hope to millions who never finished high school. As a matter of fact, half of all US millionaires never finished college. So obviously, inherited "open doors" matter a lot less than other factors do.

And even if someone is "condemned to a life of drudgery" by their IQ, taxing other people at a higher rate will not increase anyone's IQ.


Look, the whole Idea of a progressive tax implies that there is something immoral about increasing your income; as if you didn't deserve whatever money you've earned. You seem to equate people who are born with money to be the same thing as prodigious income earners.

You need to read up on the demographics of wealth in the US. Most high income-earners are first-generation wealthy, and pay tax on practically all of their increase in wealth. The old inherited wealth of the likes of Kennedy and Kerry is all tied up in trust funds and T-bills and is thus completely tax-free.

But then, nearly 80% of the millionaires in the US are first-generation rich. Only a tiny minority are "rich kids." But its a myth of the Left that no rich people earned their own fortunes. It paints a false picture of a stratified feudal society, which serves to bolster their confiscatory rhetoric.

Think about it. We've had a progressive income tax for almost a hundred years--and the left continues to tell us that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. So apparently, a graduated tax isn't slowing them down any.

Hmmm.



[edit on 16-6-2006 by dr_strangecraft]

the federal goverment charging a tax on property does not eliminate real estate taxes. Those are local taxes. There are property and school taxes that home owners pay. You won't be eliminating them, just making owning a home even more costly.

Also, adding a federal sales tax in theory is not a bad idea. I've said it a zillion times. Add some nominal amount to purchases - a penny here, a nickel there - and you can eat up a large portion of our nations money problems. Add another penny to internet sales and you are in pretty good shape, money wise.

a 23% federal sales tax is ludicrous. As stated, it takes everyone who pays less on their income taxes and hits them with more tax dollars. Yes, they probably don't spend as much as they earn but the increase will hurt the lower income families big time. the super rich might actually wind up paying more. Remember, many of the trust fund families have little or no income so taxing their expenditures isn't so bad.

however, what about the state income tax. Here in NYC I'm paying about 8.5% on purchases as it is. Add 23% and a purchase goes up 1/3. A $100 item costs $131.38. That's not good.

Also, there are so many vendors and consumers who beat the sales tax issue by paying cash. This federal sales tax will probably make that game a bit more prevalent. I know I'd pay cash whenever possible. That is why the smaller federal tax would work better. Who cares if you add a dime or a nickel to the purchase? that's not going to hurt. Adding 23% will. Every time.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
The idea that some people ought to be burdened differently, just because we don't like them as much, is the definition of unfairness; and it's a point you never address.

Oh, sorry about that. It's not a point I ever raised, either, or argued. It's a totally stupid, utterly nonsensical point that has nothing to do with the discussion. But for the record, no, I don't believe some people ought to be burdened differently "just because we don't like them as much."

I guess I didn't answer the question, because I didn't take it seriously, because it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Taxation is indeed the price of citizenship, but it also has much to do with income. Why not take your position to its logical conclusion, and argue for a really truly flat tax in which all taxpayers pay the same dollar amount, rather than the same percentage of their income? Then taxes really would have nothing to do with income. As things stand, they do.

Whether you use the word 'equal' or 'acceptable,' you're still imposing someone who will judge what an acceptable outcome should look like.

But that's unavoidable. No matter what kind of system we have, it will always have rules that create a certain outcome, and those rules are in place because that outcome was judged to be acceptable. That includes a capitalist system, of course: its rules are designed to encourage the amassing of great wealth by a few people, and as a consequence, to keep most people struggling and in service to those few. People who advocate that system like to pretend that this is a "natural" outcome of free commerce, but it's not, it's a product of the laws regarding property, corporations, labor, and so forth, as well as the tax system.

No one is condemned to a life of drudgery because of their intelligence. Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson bring hope to millions who never finished high school. As a matter of fact, half of all US millionaires never finished college. So obviously, inherited "open doors" matter a lot less than other factors do.

I didn't say less educated than I am (I never finished college, either), I said less intelligent. Not at all the same thing.

And no, it's not obvious. College is only one of the doors that being from a middle- or upper-class family opens. Probably more important (for an entrepreneur anyway) is access to capital, and contacts that help get a business started.

And even if someone is "condemned to a life of drudgery" by their IQ, taxing other people at a higher rate will not increase anyone's IQ.

Of course not. Nor did anyone suggest that it would, nor does that have any bearing on the discussion whatsoever.

I think you can figure out for itself what it WOULD do, though. Do I need to spell it out for you?

Look, the whole Idea of a progressive tax implies that there is something immoral about increasing your income

It does? Taxation is a punishment, then? The more evil you are, the more taxes you pay? I thought you said it was the price of citizenship?

Have you ever heard the term noblesse oblige? Look it up, if you haven't. There's a justification for the rich paying higher taxes, much better than the idea that being rich is immoral.

You need to read up on the demographics of wealth in the US. Most high income-earners are first-generation wealthy

Define "high income-earners" and "wealth," please. Or here, let me give you my definition of "rich." A "rich" person is someone who isn't of retirement age who makes his living off capital rather than labor, and who pulls in at least a million dollars a year from capital investments. He may work (most do, in fact), but he doesn't HAVE to work in order to live an extremely comfortable life.

Do you think that more than half of people fitting that description are first-generation wealthy?

I suppose that if you consider a hundred grand a year "rich" and include people who work for their money (professionals, that is), then you might be right. But in my book, a professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.) is middle-class, not rich.

The old inherited wealth of the likes of Kennedy and Kerry is all tied up in trust funds and T-bills and is thus completely tax-free.

Not the part they spend. But of course, our tax system has a lot of loopholes in it that are there to benefit the rich. I'm not presenting it as a model solution.

But then, nearly 80% of the millionaires in the US are first-generation rich.

A statement that would be better supported by both links and definitions. By definitions, I mean of course what you mean by "rich" ("millionaire" is already defined).

Think about it. We've had a progressive income tax for almost a hundred years--and the left continues to tell us that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. So apparently, a graduated tax isn't slowing them down any.

Actually, it did slow them down, but not as much as some other measures (like labor rights recognized by the government) that have been effectively reversed in the last 20 years or so.

But you continue to miss the point, it seems. A graduated income tax isn't designed to redistribute wealth any more than it's designed to improve people's IQ. It's designed to have the burden of taxation fall heaviest on those who can most easily pay it.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

But then, nearly 80% of the millionaires in the US are first-generation rich.

A statement that would be better supported by both links and definitions. By definitions, I mean of course what you mean by "rich" ("millionaire" is already defined).

The quote, and the definition I was using is from the book "The millionaire next door." A survey written by a couple of marketing professors who were trying to isolate millionaires and the "super-rich" so that banks could market wealth management services to that audience.

I am using the definition they used---a household with over a million dollars of net wealth.

I think that's a useful definition, since most of those people have worked hard to minimize their taxable income, and to disguise the fact that they are actually wealthy. "Taxable Income," as defined by the IRS is not very useful. Some of the millionaires interviewed by the team had a taxable household income below $50,000, even though they controlled more than a million dollars in disposable wealth.

Think about it. We've had a progressive income tax for almost a hundred years--and the left continues to tell us that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. So apparently, a graduated tax isn't slowing them down any.

Actually, it did slow them down, but not as much as some other measures (like labor rights recognized by the government) that have been effectively reversed in the last 20 years or so.

But you continue to miss the point, it seems. A graduated income tax isn't designed to redistribute wealth any more than it's designed to improve people's IQ. It's designed to have the burden of taxation fall heaviest on those who can most easily pay it.

I think everything a government does, has the effect of rewarding some people and punishing others. Every loophole in the law rewards the people who use it, while simultaneously punishing the people who don't.

It's my belief that a graduated tax punishes the entrepreneurial class the most. The poor are less affected, while inherited wealth is not touched at all. A capital gains tax is even worse--most of the first generation millionaires studied by the text I referenced above were running very prosaic businesses that are capital intensive: auctioneer was the leading occupation for those first generation millionaires. And their entire income could be construed as capital gains. Conversely, the super-rich have corporations which act on their behalf, and pay them a paltry "salary" while they retain control of the business.

In many ways, a progressive tax is a sort of "economic activity tax." The persons most responsible for America's economic innovation are the ones who bear the bulk of such a burden. The super-millionaires don't actually do much with their millions, except hold government bonds which are untaxable. Again, government rules punish the people who get up before dawn and create jobs, while effectively rewarding the idle rich.

It seems like I've really pissed you off by disagreeing with you. Too bad you can't be civil. Is that because you're looking for a flame war, or because you just can't stand to have people express other ideas?

Maybe your venom comes from the assumption that I must be rich if I don't agree with you. I'm not; but I hope to become so, some day.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I am using the definition they used---a household with over a million dollars of net wealth.

As I said, "millionaire" is already defined. What do you mean by "rich family"?

I don't believe that most millionaires today came from working-class origins. They weren't necessarily born rich, but I would lay out good odds that most of them were at least born middle class. But if you have information to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I think everything a government does, has the effect of rewarding some people and punishing others.

True enough, but only in the loosest sense of the word "punish." This kind of "punishment" doesn't imply that people are morally wrong, and that's what you were suggesting.

It's my belief that a graduated tax punishes the entrepreneurial class the most.

Well, no, it punishes the wealthy the most. One can be an (unsuccessful) entrepreneur and end up paying littler or no taxes. But let's get to the heart of what you're saying:

In many ways, a progressive tax is a sort of "economic activity tax." The persons most responsible for America's economic innovation are the ones who bear the bulk of such a burden.

It doesn't seem to have discouraged them any, though. If you look at economic growth during the periods of this nation's high versus low taxation, you will find that there is no high growth/low tax correlation. If anything, it's the other way around -- although I would suggest that this is not a matter of direct causation. Rather, the periods of higher taxes have generally also been periods when measures were taken to redistribute wealth downward, resulting in higher consumer demand, and this, rather than the taxes themselves, spurred economic growth.

It seems like I've really pissed you off by disagreeing with you.

No, you've irritated me (I wouldn't go so far as to say pissed me off) by putting words in my mouth. At no time did I ever say, directly or indirectly, that people should be taxed more because I don't like them, or that a graduated income tax will raise people's IQ. I do not like fallacious arguments. I do not like straw men.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

No, you've irritated me (I wouldn't go so far as to say pissed me off) by putting words in my mouth. At no time did I ever say, directly or indirectly, that people should be taxed more because I don't like them

Well, you've said that some people ought to pay a higher rate than others, which pretty much implies that their burdens are less relevant than the burderns other people bear. Whatever categories of differentiating, weather minority status or wealth, you still end up treating people differently based on what category they fit into.

You wrote about how the progressive tax DID slow down the rise of the wealthy, but not as effectively as unions etc. would or should have.

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

or that a graduated income tax will raise people's IQ.

No. You said it this way:

Why should anyone be condemned to a life of drudgery and never making it because his or her intelligence is less than mine? Did he or she choose to be less intelligent than I am?

Talk about straw man arguments. If people's IQ won't be affected by the tax system, why did you even bring this up? Definitely implying that anyone who disagrees with you is "condemning" people.

I do not like fallacious arguments. I do not like straw men.

Two of us, there.

.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Well, you've said that some people ought to pay a higher rate than others, which pretty much implies that their burdens are less relevant than the burderns other people bear. Whatever categories of differentiating, weather minority status or wealth, you still end up treating people differently based on what category they fit into.

No. It's totally different. Saying that it is less of a burden for a rich person to pay taxes than a poor (or non-rich) one is no different than saying it is less difficult for a strong person to lift 100 pounds than for a small, weak one.

This is not in the same category as classifying people by race, by gender, by creed, by nationality, or anything else, the problem with those classifications is that they have nothing to do with the purpose for which one is doing the classifying. But wealth has everything to do with the the ability to pay taxes.

And it also has nothing to do with whether I "like" rich people or not, which are the words you put in my mouth.

Talk about straw man arguments. If people's IQ won't be affected by the tax system, why did you even bring this up?

Because it is not fair to punish people with a high tax burden for something that is not their fault. The rules of our economic game make it hard to become wealthy (but easy, once you are wealthy, to become wealthier). Since it is hard, since it is competitive, only the smart, the ruthless, the industrious, the aggressive, and the lucky will succeed at it. Of those, one may perhaps choose to be ruthless, industrious, and aggressive, but one cannot choose to be smart or lucky. That is inborn.

It's not so hard to understand, if you allow yourself to do so.

i wonder how much tax money discussing changest to the tax code would cost us...

honestly, i think the biggest change to the tax code should be a lower tax on public servants (teachers, cops, firefighters, etc) and on the lowest tax bracket.

that's just my 2 cents